Elaine~ "I want the smart people to breed on occasion."

I totally agree because it's not like the stupid people are going to stop breeding! I have no need or desire to replicate myself but I'm happy that some of my friends are growing interesting, smart kids.

It's not so much about having kids or not having kids, or being single or in a couple, it's about how you live.

Blanket statements have a way of not covering extremities, heads, feet, hands, they may start out covering all, but they are apt to move about and exposure takes over.

Averages as well might reveal an impossible nature that resists category and easy extrapolation.

If the world human population were observed in groups of 100, a random selection may not bear any significance to a local grouping taken from proximity. Life struggles not so much to balance freedom and security but to make a vibrant dance.

The phrase, 'everybody talks about the weather but doesn't do anything about it', is not always true, more likely to get out in it more to enjoy it and get out in it less to avoid it when it can't be enjoyed.

Consider these statistics from the New York Times, Energy and Environment section: (greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...oar/)

*At Boston College, 17 students minored in environmental studies in 2003; this year 44 students will do so.
*Iowa State University has seen the number of students enrolled in environmental studies and environmental science programs soar from 99 students in fall 2003 to more than 150 last fall.
*University of Virginia sees Environmental Studies degree seekers increase by 45%.

Universities and colleges in the U.S. are beefing up their undergraduate and graduate level Environmental Studies and Alternative Energy programs in response to current students demands. These students are children born in the 1980's (for the most part). These are the young adults that will research, create and implement the changes necessary to reach a balanced and sustainable environment for the rest of us. And personally, I am incredibly excited to see how the next few generations will tackle these issues here and globally.

So, while I can't get on board with punishing those that choose to procreate and/or reward those that don't,(and please consider just WHO would be punished…the children), I am completely in support of raising the children we DO have and ARE having to understand and embrace the ideology of environmental responsibility peppered with no small amount of personal responsibility.

When I consider my own contributions to the gene pool and current culture, I am proud and inspired. My oldest child just recently moved to New Mexico with her BF of 3 years; she's continuing her education in studio art after winning a prestigious award for her graphic comic book novel detailing commercialism in the underground culture, and he's been offered a job working with a *green* housing construction agency after receiving 2 separate degrees, one in physics and one in engineering.

It’s not about how many children we have/are having, but about how we’re raising those children. And we are ALL a part of that- even those of us that’ve chosen NOT to procreate. It won’t do any good to sit on the sidelines in critical judgment, doling out rewards or punishments to those do or do not reside on *your* side of the fence, because the reality doesn’t involve a fence. It’s not us vs. them and it’s never really been about ‘survival of the fittest’; historically it’s always been about survival of the most cooperative.

-K

>>We need to stop living like Americans<<

That's the transition that's occurring now, doncha think? Sure, many people still have their heads firmly planted in the sand, but that's irrelevant in the face of what's been unraveling over the last 20+ years.

Perhaps we all need to wake up and let go of ANY nationalistic beliefs and behaviors, unless we all want to find ourselves more deeply ensconced in another era of truly deep crisis (such as WWII, the Civil War, the Revolutionary war, to use some examples of former crisis eras in this country).

Then again, we might just need to stay in the same cyclic behavior we've been in for centuries and require a massive war/famine/disease scenario, in which millions of humans are slaughtered, in order to cycle on to the next upswing in the wheel of life. There may not be enough people open enough to inspect/change our root assumptions, beliefs, and behaviors to do otherwise...

Yeah but logically... If you keep one American that uses 12 to 15 times the resources out of circulation you make room for at least that many bushman... Therefore Americans having fewer monsters has an even greater impact

JSin

"We need to stop living like Americans."

Go native?

For a second I thought 'Go Navy'.

or naval.
navel.

I live like a Kentuckian, in a little part of annexed Indiana.
eieiyo.

mostly within my means, currently in the black. but not by much.
enough?

Does it seem the more that is taxed, the more that is spent?

quel - "One thing I do want to add, is that tax credits or not, raising a child has gotten more expensive throughout the years. If it hadn't, there would be less families with 2 working parents."

I know all parents feel this way but I'm not convinced it's actually true. Many families are double income not out of need but out of desire that's mistaken for need - particularly in middle class situations. (When you're poor both people usually need to work whether you've got kids or not.) If one looks at middle class North Americans (particularly Americans), one sees people who live in mansions (many middle and upper middle class US homes are huge), who don't do basic energy conservation and watch their bills, who throw away money on eating out/takeout/prefab food/etc, who own multiple cars and "recreational" things - boats, ATVs, etc, and who have multiple massive TVs, think video games and expensive entertainment are a "need", etc). Of course, there are plenty of people who are cautious and realistic about their consumption and what they can actually afford but the general American consumer meme has been "I deserve everything" for decades now and it's being sold by the banks, credit cards, corporations, etc as a means to get people into debt so they can make money. Undoubtedly, it's harder and more expensive for minority families in the US (see the breaking scandal regarding Wells Fargo and other banks consciously targeting black customers for sub-prime mortgages when they actually qualified for prime mortgages). Of course, poor families have almost always had two working parents to help make ends meet. The stay at home mom was very much an aspirational invention of the 1950s (that was selling the idea that automation would make all middle class women into non-working upper class ones that are merely there to socially support their husband).

As I understand it, China is now concerned that as their aging population will one day no longer contribute to productivity, that they may not have enough young workers to support them. I think the policy would be a hard sell. Generally, the developed nations are not the ones contributing to out of control population growth. The problem of population growth, by itself could be alleviated to a great extent if women's health care services were more readily available in 3rd world areas.

In Africa, women have an average of 9 children each, but they do this because they expect a good percentage of them to die. They still end up with a high percentage that do make it to adulthood though malnourished and under-educated.

I don't have time now, Fifi, but I am quite sure parenting is more costly these days. Rising health care costs and the amount that has to be contributed for supplies in public schools is just for starters.